> > + /*
> > + * TODO: This function needs to be re-written so that it's output
> > + * matches the output of aer_print_error(). Right now, the
> output
> > + * is formatted very differently.
> > + */
>
> So we have this big "TODO" comment sitting there very prominently ...
> which Linus
> is bound to ask about if I ask him to pull this into 3.10-rcX ...
> what's the impact of
> this? What should I say when he asks why should he pull this fix into
> 3.10 when
> there is still some work to do? Is matching the output no big deal and
> can wait for
> some future, while moving the pci bits to the work function needs to go
> in now?
Tony,
You have a good point. Ideally the console output should be the same in both the aer and the cper case. The output in cper_print_error() does give us a reasonable amount of information, just not as detailed as I the aer case. Also now what we have the trace event for aer, the console output might be less important. This TODO is a note for future clean-up and is not directly related to the bug being fixed with this patch. Which lends to the argument of why put the TODO in this patch? Opportunistic. I don’t think we want to create a separate patch just for a TODO note.
So, why pull this patch in even though there is work to do? The patch fixes a warning that might cause customers un-due concern and removes a call in interrupt context that should not be there.
Lance
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���"�)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
